Keysi Fighting Method/Defence Lab

[Gerry Seymour]

Well it's not by definition an accepted term as I Diagree, And seemingly so do most dictionaries, ,

In your new an unofficial defintion, what aspect of pain or compliance have changed from the dictionary drfintion and what is the new meaning of the combined phrase, that doesn't include compliance through pain

Accepted terms need only be accepted by those using them. And since everyone else here seems to have a common understanding of the term - despite coming from different backgrounds - it seems unlikely we've all stumbled into the same uncommon usage.

But go ahead and claim I've made that usage up. I'll be interested in seeing your attempt at logic in face of contrary fact.

 

[drop bear]

I wonder if the larger issue is that DL methodology might be best suited for short-term training. Beyond that, with a bit more experience, you'd want to get out of the framing box and open up your options more. Take something well-suited for short-term gains and try to lengthen it without really altering it, and you start holding folks too close to the limited (and limiting) choices of a beginner.

It still has to be based on something. I mean I could just train basics that would give a starting self defencer something quick to work on.

But it is where the defence methodology isn't really grounded. So for example let's say that instead of putting some boxing gloves on, throwing punches and developing something simple to deal with that.

We decide that a street fight will only consist of ten seconds of overhand right attacks.

Then just like jobo mentioned you begin to have a system that leans towards a specific attack. Just like sport BJJ. Where you would spend time learning guard passes and submission defences you will probably never need.

But instead of ever refining that so that should someone throw 10 seconds of overhand rights at you. (Because non consensual violence does not parallel consensual violence)

You only drill what you think should happen in a street fight. Which then removes any real timing or feedback.

Suddenly you have time to block that overhand and hit them three times in the arm before it comes back.

And so because that would be the coolest thing ever. And because you are getting away with it in training. It becomes a viable self defence method.

I think if you are just left to drill people go cray cray after a while.

 

[drop bear]

I'm a great fan of elbow fighting, that I know works very well, particularly up close, the upward fist has power, perhaps not as much as other punches, and that in isolation won't cause a great deal of damage, but in combination with a lot of other blows, it has its place

So you don't like elbows from a distance?

There are better things with more likley results. Than how to deal with a person who throws one punch and then staunchly stands there while you throw multiple elbow back fists at them.

But yes uppercut backfists do work. They just don't work like that.

 

[Deleted member 39489]

So you don't like elbows from a distance?

There are better things with more likley results. Than how to deal with a person who throws one punch and then staunchly stands there while you throw multiple elbow back fists at them.

But yes uppercut backfists do work. They just don't work like that.

Its an reverse hammer fist, you can compare it with an upper back fist.

You can feel the difference in the structure of the arm,the hammer is an unnatural movement

 

[Deleted member 39489]

It still has to be based on something. I mean I could just train basics that would give a starting self defencer something quick to work on.

But it is where the defence methodology isn't really grounded. So for example let's say that instead of putting some boxing gloves on, throwing punches and developing something simple to deal with that.

We decide that a street fight will only consist of ten seconds of overhand right attacks.

Then just like jobo mentioned you begin to have a system that leans towards a specific attack. Just like sport BJJ. Where you would spend time learning guard passes and submission defences you will probably never need.

But instead of ever refining that so that should someone throw 10 seconds of overhand rights at you. (Because non consensual violence does not parallel consensual violence)

You only drill what you think should happen in a street fight. Which then removes any real timing or feedback.

Suddenly you have time to block that overhand and hit them three times in the arm before it comes back.

And so because that would be the coolest thing ever. And because you are getting away with it in training. It becomes a viable self defence method.

I think if you are just left to drill people go cray cray after a while.

That's quite accurate, the internal language is learn it were you learn the drill,develop the drill self explanatory, stress it where you do the drill under stress.

Example basic frame one straight punch defense

You learn it on pads, deploy frame one block with elbows.

Develop it you keep doing it till it's in muscle memory

Stress it, you do it against a partner hitting you with pads or gloves. This however isn't sparring it would be technical sparring if im being generous.

Its too much of the former and not enough of the latter and an obsession with secret techniques and naming drills stupid things like the terminator 5.

The Secret Techniques Behind Defence Lab - Defence Lab

 

[jobo]

So you don't like elbows from a distance?

There are better things with more likley results. Than how to deal with a person who throws one punch and then staunchly stands there while you throw multiple elbow back fists at them.

But yes uppercut backfists do work. They just don't work like that.

How can you have elbows from a distance, you are limited by the length of the upper arm? , in Short range they are extremely effective, , if I'm 3foot way they are useless

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It still has to be based on something. I mean I could just train basics that would give a starting self defencer something quick to work on.

But it is where the defence methodology isn't really grounded. So for example let's say that instead of putting some boxing gloves on, throwing punches and developing something simple to deal with that.

We decide that a street fight will only consist of ten seconds of overhand right attacks.

Then just like jobo mentioned you begin to have a system that leans towards a specific attack. Just like sport BJJ. Where you would spend time learning guard passes and submission defences you will probably never need.

But instead of ever refining that so that should someone throw 10 seconds of overhand rights at you. (Because non consensual violence does not parallel consensual violence)

You only drill what you think should happen in a street fight. Which then removes any real timing or feedback.

Suddenly you have time to block that overhand and hit them three times in the arm before it comes back.

And so because that would be the coolest thing ever. And because you are getting away with it in training. It becomes a viable self defence method.

I think if you are just left to drill people go cray cray after a while.

Yes, that. That's what I was getting at. So, if I took my "foundation" material as an example (the first few classes in my curriculum). It's a gathering of fairly uncomplicated stuff that introduces covers and blocks, basic strikes, a tiny amount of footwork, some body movement, etc. It's meant to be something a beginner can digest, and at the end of it, they can kind of do some stuff - only against some few predictable attacks. If I stuck only to that for students who stayed for 2 years, and kept working on those same attacks, you'd get exactly what you're talking about. If I only introduced sparring on top of that, it would expand quite a bit, rather naturally. In fact, if I had someone who only wanted to train for a few classes, then come back once a month, that's probably what I'd do.

 

[jobo]

Accepted terms need only be accepted by those using them. And since everyone else here seems to have a common understanding of the term - despite coming from different backgrounds - it seems unlikely we've all stumbled into the same uncommon usage.

But go ahead and claim I've made that usage up. I'll be interested in seeing your attempt at logic in face of contrary fact.

But I'm using it and don't accept your extremely limited definition So it clearly isNt an accepted defintion, if you had said commonly accepted defintion, you may have had a point to argue, though that would have lead to the question of how you had assessed how common it was, , you or at least someone has made it up, And it's clearly nonsensical to exclude techniques that reply on pain compliance from being included as pain compliance techniques

 

[Gerry Seymour]

But I'm using it and don't accept your extremely limited definition So it clearly isNt an accepted defintion, if you had said commonly accepted defintion, you may have had a point to argue, though that would have lead to the question of how you had assessed how common it was, , you or at least someone has made it up, And it's clearly nonsensical to exclude techniques that reply on pain compliance from being included as pain compliance techniques

Doesn't even have to be common, though. Every trade, industry, and profession has jargon that is not common outside that population, but is is the accepted usage within it. Doesn't matter whether it's in the dictionary or not (dictionaries are repositories, not rule books), so long as those involved understand the usage. If I walk into a bank and tell them they're mis-using a word, that doesn't make them wrong - it just means I don't understand the industry usage of the term.

But keep going. You're almost getting to a point.

 

[Deleted member 39489]

But I'm using it and don't accept your extremely limited definition So it clearly isNt an accepted defintion, if you had said commonly accepted defintion, you may have had a point to argue, though that would have lead to the question of how you had assessed how common it was, , you or at least someone has made it up, And it's clearly nonsensical to exclude techniques that reply on pain compliance from being included as pain compliance techniques

If I arm bar you I have control of your structure, if wanted to I could just break the arm rendering it useless.

If I skin tear you I have no real structural control and no ability to do anything but superficial damage

One is a control based on structure that can be enhanced with pain but doesn't require it to work.

One requires pain to function.

 

[jobo]

Doesn't even have to be common, though. Every trade, industry, and profession has jargon that is not common outside that population, but is is the accepted usage within it. Doesn't matter whether it's in the dictionary or not (dictionaries are repositories, not rule books), so long as those involved understand the usage. If I walk into a bank and tell them they're mis-using a word, that doesn't make them wrong - it just means I don't understand the industry usage of the term.

But keep going. You're almost getting to a point.

Are you claiming its accepted usage, common usage, accepted usage in this forum or common usage on this forum

Just to remind you, it was people telling me I was wrong, Not the other way round,

 

[jobo]

If I arm bar you I have control of your structure, if wanted to I could just break the arm rendering it useless.

If I skin tear you I have no real structural control and no ability to do anything but superficial damage

One is a control based on structure that can be enhanced with pain but doesn't require it to work.

One requires pain to function.

So your working definition of a pain compliance technique, is that pain is not required,,, this is getting more bizare,

Is compliance required or is this just randomly picking words out of a hat

 

[Deleted member 39489]

So your working definition of a pain compliance technique, is that pain is not required,,, this is getting more bizare,

Is compliance required or is this just randomly picking words out of a hat

Why do you think arm bars still work on people on PCP?

Control isolate and immobilize.

Can you stop a guy out of his mind on drugs using skin tears?

 

[jobo]

Why do you think arm bars still work on people on PCP?

Control isolate and immobilize.

Can you stop a guy out of his mind on drugs using skin tears?

Coz it controls, i.e. It's a control technique not a pain compliance technique, because the feel no pain and therefore they don't become compliant,,,

 

[drop bear]

How can you have elbows from a distance, you are limited by the length of the upper arm? , in Short range they are extremely effective, , if I'm 3foot way they are useless

Yes that was my point.

 

[jobo]

Yes that was my point.

Was it ? You disguised it well!

 

[Deleted member 39489]

Coz it controls, i.e. It's a control technique not a pain compliance technique, because the feel no pain and therefore they don't become compliant,,,

Hence my point.


Do I use the Mount defense that relies on manipulating base?

Or do I use the one that relies on pain?

 

[jobo]

Hence my point.


Do I use the Mount defense that relies on manipulating base?

Or do I use the one that relies on pain?

You use the one that works best in the,situation you find yourself in, sometimes you can dictate what happens and can pick you most favoured technique, others you have to go with what presents its self.

The bjj mount defence is not in anyway what do ever a pain compliance technique, so I don't know why you are trying to shoE horn it into the discussion on pain compliance techniques

 

[Deleted member 39489]

You use the one that works best in the,situation you find yourself in, sometimes you can dictate what happens and can pick you most favoured technique, others you have to go with what presents its self.

The bjj mount defence is not in anyway what do ever a pain compliance technique, so I don't know why you are trying to shoE horn it into the discussion on pain compliance techniques

Because that's the point. Why use a technique that's REQUIRES pain response to function instead of a technique that doesnt?

 

[jobo]

Because that's the point. Why use a technique that's REQUIRES pain response to function instead of a technique that doesnt?

Because in a fight you may not have a choice, and in a fight pain/ damage to your opponent is commonly the goal,

You may only have 30 seconds to go before someone breaks it up and in that time you want to cause the maximum damage/ pain that is possible.

If your fighting multiple opponents you have only a few seconds, 3/4/5 maybe, to dispatch an opponent, before his friends join in, you need to hurt / damage him as much as possible in that time, messing about putting him an arm bar will only get you hurt. If all you can do is slash him up with a ring then that's all you can do, at the vet least he is in hospital with you gettibg,stitched up, which will make you feel better

At the simplest level of I was in a mount, if rather hit the guy with an elbows to get him off, than just get him off, noR are escape from mounts always possible, no matter what technique you use, so just hurt him if you can, it's really the best idea not to go to ground and if you do, do not end up on the bottom, no matter what you do, your going to end up taking some heavy punches if the guy mounts you, escaping when you've been punch unconscious may be difficult